LinkedIn Corporation v Bentley Wang

WIPO Case No. D2024-0506

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

LinkedIn Corporation v. Bentley Wang

Case No. D2024-0506

1. The Parties

The Complainant is LinkedIn Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by The

GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, United States.

The Respondent is Bentley Wang, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <linkedinus.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 2, 2024.
On February 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On February 2, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the
Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name
which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, PrivacyGuardian.org llc) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 5,
2024 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the

Complaint on February 5, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 6, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 26, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on March 13, 2024. The Panel finds that
it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of

Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a widely known professional online network with its registered seat in the United States.

It has more than 1 billion members in more than 200 countries and regions around the world.

The Complainant is the owner of the LINKEDIN trademark, which is registered in many jurisdictions. Among
many others, the Complainant is the registered owner of the United States Trademark Registration No.
3074241, registered on March 28, 2006, for LINKEDIN, covering protection inter alia for online business
networking services, and the European Union Trademark Registration No. W01368414, registered on April
27, 2017, for LINKEDIN, covering protection inter alia for educational services.

The Complainant operates its official website at “ and owns and operates also a large number of national websites in respective language versions (Annexes 5, 6 and 7 to the Complaint).

The Respondent is reportedly located in China.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 5, 2023.

Based on the case file, the disputed domain name resolves to a website mostly in the English language
purportedly offering a membership in the Complainant’s professional network at reduced prices.
Furthermore, the website associated with the disputed domain name is prominently using the Complainant’s
LINKEDIN trademark as well as other trademark protected logos of the Complainant, without any visible and
accurate disclaimer describing the (lack of) relationship between the Parties (Annexes 8 and 9 to the

Complaint).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the
Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant

has rights;

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

page 3

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where
relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the
WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the LINKEDIN trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the LINKEDIN mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms, here “us”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the LINKEDIN mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of a response, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come

forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name

such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its LINKEDIN
trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It is obvious to the Panel, that the
Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain name, which is comprising the Complainant’s
LINKEDIN trademark entirely, to target the Complainant. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the
Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

With respect to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website, which purportedly offers a membership in the Complainant’s professional network at reduced prices, by deliberately misleading third parties in a false belief that the associated website is either operated or at least authorized by the

Complainant. The prominent use of the Complainant’s LINKEDIN mark (as well as the use of further registered trademarks of the Complainant), and the inherently misleading nature of the disputed domain name, which comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s LINKEDIN trademark plus the term “us” (which may refer to the “United States”), is, in view of the Panel, sufficient evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its LINKEDIN trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

In addition, the Panel accepts the failure of the Respondent to submit a response to the Complainant’s contentions as an additional indication for bad faith.

Taking all facts of the case into consideration, the Panel is convinced that this is a typical cybersquatting case, which the UDRP was designed to stop.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <linkedinus.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: March 27, 2024